<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2023 (6) TMI 132 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438558</link>
    <description>HC held that the trust is a distinct assessable entity from its managing trustee, who is separately assessable in his individual capacity. Since the Income Tax Department has already treated the seized cash as unexplained income of the managing trustee and passed assessment orders against him, now under challenge in appeal, examination of the validity of seizure and determination of whether the money belongs to the trust or the trustee would involve adjudicating disputed questions of title and fact. Such issues lie outside the limited writ jurisdiction under Art. 226. HC therefore declined to entertain the writ petition seeking return of seized money, leaving the petitioners to pursue appropriate statutory remedies against the impugned proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2025 18:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=715461" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (6) TMI 132 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438558</link>
      <description>HC held that the trust is a distinct assessable entity from its managing trustee, who is separately assessable in his individual capacity. Since the Income Tax Department has already treated the seized cash as unexplained income of the managing trustee and passed assessment orders against him, now under challenge in appeal, examination of the validity of seizure and determination of whether the money belongs to the trust or the trustee would involve adjudicating disputed questions of title and fact. Such issues lie outside the limited writ jurisdiction under Art. 226. HC therefore declined to entertain the writ petition seeking return of seized money, leaving the petitioners to pursue appropriate statutory remedies against the impugned proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438558</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>